Technical Variation and the Concept of Distance1

Dr Loewenstein's report raises a number of questions on the possible variations within the framework of an analytical practice, for which he does not give the criteria, but which seem nevertheless to be strictly classical.

Thus he is interested in 'variations' rather than 'modifications', and it is of course evident that the outcome of an analysis may depend upon just such small variations. However, the 'modifications' with which he contrasts the 'variations' are also important in view of the fact that many of the cases with which we have to deal are borderline cases. On the other hand, both modifications and variations can be gauged only by reference to a criterion which is not formal but dynamic in nature, that is to say to the development of the transference neurosis and its ultimate dissolution.

For this reason I find it difficult to separate variations from modifications. We might with reason refer to them as small and large variations, and it seems to me that the difference between them rests upon artificial distinctions. The more so since, as Loewenstein has already pointed out, there remain many obscurities in our technique and each analyst in addition has his own style. As an example of this I need only cite the difference between the active and passive attitudes in analytic technique.

I was recently required to write a work on a standard analytic treatment where I was to explain and uphold the most commonly recognized technical rules of psycho-analysis. But to do this I was constantly obliged to demonstrate the deviations which intuitive insight imposes upon these rules, and indeed in order to avoid giving any impression of rigidity in their formulation. But the term 'intuitive insight' when used to justify technical variations appears rather too vague, and I would like today to present a point of view which I hope will prove more precise.

THE DIFFERENT OBJECT RELATIONS

I have already referred to the need for testing any technical variation f